[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Can someone redpill me on climate change?
How screwed are we?
Is the world as we know it really gonna end?
I'm always here, trolling that climate change is fake for the lulz, and pretending like I don't care, but I love my life and the world and I don't want it to get fucked.
Inb4 go watch a billion videos, I just wanna know realistically how screwed are we?
>>
File: c20.jpg (36 KB, 458x458)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
>>10377312
Global warming is a Jewish conspiracy anon
>>
>>10377312
Because of unsustainable use of resources and our inability to co-ordinate to deal with a problem like this, we are basically fucked. Everyone only looks out for their own interests and passes the buck to the next guy so nothing ever changes.

Expect the standard of living to decrease substantially everywhere especially in poorer nations, causing conflict. There are so many problems concerning the environment that it's basically impossible to stop the coming shitstorm unless people agree unanimously to do all they can to stop it.
>>
>>10377375
It's not too late to save the environment dude, we just need to focus on china, India, and the middle east to stop polluting so much, and fuck the Paris agreement
>>
>>10377383
I know it's not too late. I just don't think it's possible for humanity to co-operate before it's too late.
>>
File: CC_hadleyCell.jpg (54 KB, 960x680)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>10377312
In the 2030s rainfall will collapse by 50-75% in the subtropics (lat 23...40)
That is where all the worlds breadbaskets are.
Losing food security has always historically led to wars and raiding
>>
File: 1547895909511.jpg (71 KB, 640x360)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
>>
>>10377312
For many countries climate change means improved living conditions and better economy
>>
>>10377400
> the 2030s rainfall will collapse by 50-75% in the subtropics (lat 23...40)
That is where all the worlds breadbaskets are.

lol, Europe is food self sufficient.Poland alone can feed 200 million people.
>>
>>10377312
Screwed depends where you live, how far it goes (depends on a few things), and what measures we develop to combat it.
No, the world won't end from relatively mild changes in climate (as compared with historical shifts). Some countries will be hit harder than others, while for a time there can be benefits to a new climate (see >>10377453). As for right now, we're weighing the cost between what we're doing right now and how we can prevent damage in the future, as well as getting other countries to cooperate.
>>
>>10377456
>Poland alone can feed 200 million people.
Just because it is able to, doesn't mean it actually can.
>>
>>10377375
I always see shit like this, but where is the data? No one ever posts data.
>>
File: 1546317296229.gif (2.83 MB, 720x775)
2.83 MB
2.83 MB GIF
Pic-related shows the average temperature on the planet at all times.

>What is the problem
Once we hit between 3 to 4 degrees of global warming a chain reaction will occur. What happens is that the permafrost will melt and release a fuckton of trapped methane into the atmosphere. Methane is an even worse greenhouse gas than CO2 and will push the temperature even higher estimated to 8 degrees warming. When that point gets reached it is warm enough for clathrates on the bottom of the ocean to release even more methane than was released by the permafront causing the Earth to warm by an additional 20 degrees. This is enough to cause a complete collapse of the ecosystem where every single multi-cellular species on the planet goes extinct.

We are expected to reach 3 degrees of warming in a worst case scenario in 2125 which is the absolute earliest date the collapse can start.

>What are the assumptions
Scientists aren't sure yet if the methane from the permafrost will release by 3 degrees warming or 4 degrees warming. So most UN estimates just take the worst case scenario which is 3 degrees warming.

We also assume that the global population grows exponentially (not the case, fertility is dropping) and that our power consumption and greenhouse gas release will increase exponentially as well for the 3 degrees to be reached in 2125. In reality we are slowly switching to green energy, our population isn't growing exponentially anymore and we don't have exponentially increasing power consumption meaning the 3 degrees warming is probably extended into 2300s due to these factors alone.

It also doesn't account for future technology. They assume that we will have the same technology from 2019 to 2125 and doesn't account for carbon capture from the atmosphere, fusion power or any other radical breakthrough such as Gene editing crops, humans and livestock to better withstand hotter temperatures.

(1/3)
>>
A huge wave of climate refugees will be swarming Europe and North America. I'm talking tens of millions
>>
File: NPC-440x240.jpg (16 KB, 440x240)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>10377547
>Thinks UN climate panel is legit
>>
File: iu[2].jpg (480 KB, 750x563)
480 KB
480 KB JPG
>How long will the collapse take when it starts to collapse
Scientists estimate the time from the start of the collapse between 3-4 degrees warming and the last multicellular species to die off to take between 10,000-50,000 years. This means that even if we ban all green technology and actively try to pollute the planet as possible to reach the 2125 collapse starting point. Humanity still has 10,000 years to develop technology to either fix the problem, adapt to the problem or leave the planet.

All in all humanity itself isn't truly at risk by global warming and most people don't even have an idea what global warming actually entails. Most people seem to think it's already too late and have no idea about the degrees of warming. The Paris accord for example tries to keep the warming below 1.5 degrees which will be reached in 2040. If we manage to avoid that absolutely nothing will change to the climate at all. Yet people act like the total ecological collapse has already started. Which is more than a 100 years away from us and the full effects will not be felt until thousands of years into the future if it happened.

The nature on Earth and the species on it are more than likely going to go extinct. Humanity will easily overcome the problems but the rest of nature doesn't have the luxury of technology like we do.

The one thing you see redditors and normies claim a lot is "The Earth will be fine, humanity is fucked" Is actually the other way around. Humanity will be fine, The Earth and nature is getting fucked.

(2/3)
>>
File: iu[1].jpg (160 KB, 600x600)
160 KB
160 KB JPG
>What are humanities methods to avert or survive this crisis
We can stop putting out greenhouse gasses before the 3 degrees warming are reached, We can actively capture and store greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere such as letting trees grow and then storing the wood which will contain the carbon within it. Or use fusion power to turn CO2 back into oil in an energy intensive project and pump it back into old oil-wells, literally turning back what we did.

Once we actually reach the 3 degrees warming and we weren't able to stop it we could start editing human DNA with CRISPR to make us more tolerable to hotter climate as well as our crops and lifestock to be able to survive a hotter planet. We could also build artificial habitats while nature dies around us. We could use electrolysis of H2O to produce oxygen for us to breath. And synthesize carbon chains into nutrients even if all plants and animals died. Life would suck but humanity would still not die even if every other species died in this scenario.

Last but not least we could make artificial space habitats and break up the Earth for material as all the nature on the surface has died anyway.

(3/3)
>>
>>10377566
>>10377563
>>10377547
Thanks.
So the alarmist stance so often found in public discussion is mostly ideologically motivated?
>>
>>10377582
You're just gonna ignore all the other posts?
>>
>>10377591
:^)
>>
File: wAhVVT5[1].png (88 KB, 1428x911)
88 KB
88 KB PNG
>>10377582
I don't think it's ideological per-say. I think it's mostly based on clickbait headlines sensationalism and a lot of misconceptions by people that don't look at the actual data.

Remember the early 2000s when people talked about "peak oil" and how we would run out of oil in just a couple of decades.

Well we have about 500 years of oil left at current consumption levels, they didn't account for oil exploration and the cost of oil drilling to get lower.

In a couple of years global warming is going to look just as silly as "peak oil" looks now. Not because it was wrong (When they said peak oil it was technically right and expected). But because the crisis is easily solved and averted by very small changes.

I'm also old enough to have survived previous ecological disasters. Leaded gasoline which made tons of lead particles in the sky, acid rain and quite recently the ozon layer. All of these ecological crisis were just as big as global warming on the news and we all fixed them within a couple of decades.

There's no reason to think that global warming will be any different. In fact this crisis has been the mildest yet as the lead particles were expected to cause permanent brain damage for the entire human population by the year 2000 so we only had about 25-30 years since the 1970s when it was found out to solve it. We fixed it in the 1990s. The ozon layer would have been a big problem by 2030. We found out about it in the early 1990s and fixed it in the early 2000s.

Global warming only has been taken seriously by the mainstream in the last couple of years and we have until 2125 to fix it but will probably fix it within the next 2 decades so I have no idea why people are flipping out.

I think it's primarily religious doomsday people, for profit news headlines and uninformed people spouting this shit. With some weed smoking hippies sprinkled on top.
>>
>>10377593
Seems like you might have an agenda...
>>
>Is global warming real
Absolutely
>Is global warming caused by human activity
Yes it certainly is
>Is global warming going to be a real threat to Earth and Nature in general
Yes it has the potential to wipe out complex life on the planet
>Will global warming be a threat to humanity
Fuck no. Who do you think we are? We will barely notice this shit. Nature will just become blander and deader around us while we will slowly adapt with technology to the new environments. People that even think for a moment this will impact human way of life are delusional.
>>
>>10377604
I don't mind reduction in consumption and investment in renewable energy sources, I just don't like being lied to, so a tiny fraction of the world population can reach their geopolitical goals.
Our own de-industrialization is not an effective way to stop the warming effect anyway if production simply shifts to Asia.
>>
>>10377630
>lalala things I don't want to hear are lies better trust a random shill
>>
>>10377629
>Fuck no. Who do you think we are? We will barely notice this shit. Nature will just become blander and deader around us while we will slowly adapt with technology to the new environments.
This is how I know you live a sheltered life.
>>
>>10377655
Everyone is living a sheltered life in 2019. Life is lived through social media. Everyone is urbanizing and retail is dying meaning more and more people just order everything they need online to be delivered.

The entire trend is people becoming sheltered thus we will not notice the enviromental degradation and we won't care as well since it won't impact our way of life.

Beaches will still exist so even 90% of holidays will stay the same.
>>
File: 1544231942746.png (152 KB, 720x774)
152 KB
152 KB PNG
Even supposing climate change is anything like the field warns us about - green tech and green politicians would not be the ones to lead us out of it. Their entire affect is a naked grab for power and status built on virtue signalling - everything they purport about fixing the problem is pure vaporware.
>>
>>10377383

>China, India

Get US companies to stop manufacturing so much shit in these two countries for their domestic consumers and you're halfway there
>>
>>10377554

>>>/pol/
>>
File: 1518045540769.jpg (5 KB, 221x250)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>10377431
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/
>>
File: impacts-mindmap.jpg (347 KB, 1600x1137)
347 KB
347 KB JPG
>>10377312
if we act now it's not this bad, but if we wait for another generation we are in deep shit
here is a picture
>>
>>10377792
we passed 0.8 degrees in 2014 and are expected to reach 1.0 in 2020 so those 2 can't be avoided yet. Paris accord wants to keep it under 1.5 degrees of heating and they are reasonably successful in adopting most things so there is no reason to panic yet.
>>
File: Kvku6uw.jpg (141 KB, 1024x768)
141 KB
141 KB JPG
>>10377453
Hi polish apple guy, you again? You know it's not true. Why keep you spreading this nonsense?
wildfires, drought, and floods eat up your potential effects
>>
>>10377525
OP specifically said he wanted a brief summary ya donut
>>
>>10377805
The map is mostly wrong but Russia, Canada, Norway, Finland, Greenland and Antarctica WILL benefit from global warming.

Any place that now has large snowy land will be farmland in the future.
>>
>>10377805
This picture is equally stupid, because if you genuinely believe that the Dutch are just going to sit there and disappear beneath the waves you're wrong.
>>
>>10377809
This is a myth, especially northern nations with permafrost soil are already fucked. Also most people live near the coast, just above sea level, It's not fun if a storm washes your home away.
>>
>>10377827
What should they do, learn to swim? Would you welcome millions of Dutch refugees? If you already have to build new housing for millions of refugees from your own nation?
>>
>>10377831
>especially northern nations with permafrost soil are already fucked. Also most people live near the coast, just above sea level, It's not fun if a storm washes your home away


Countries with huge increases of food production due to global warming like Poland or Belarus aren’t in northern permafrost regions, nor is majority of their population near the coasts(which aren’t even seriously endangered)
>>
>>10377842
Well, I'm Dutch so it's going to be difficult to accept refugees. But I'd say that people would prefer refugees from a developed nation that is renowned for combating water. And I think that as a country we will profit from rising water levels, as everyone is going to need our expertise to save their asses from a little water.

I'm also fairly sure that that map puts the new water level at +50 meters and that's just exaggerating. I highly doubt the sea is going to rise even by 1 or 2 meters with all the ice melting. Surely we would be able to measure an increase in water level by now already?, and as far as I know, that's not the case. There may be more floods but that's because of extreme weather and erosion, something that's not going to happen with the countries around the relatively sheltered north sea and baltic sea.
>>
>>10377871
>I highly doubt the sea is going to rise even by 1 or 2 meters with all the ice melting

Why do you highly doubt that?
>>
>>10377312
Its fake
>>
>>10377886
Okay, fair enough I shouldn't have said that I highly doubt it, because I guess if all the ice melted you would notice a difference. BUT, I do not think that the water would spread equally over the earth, as already there are large regions of the earth with a lower water level compared to other areas.
Moreover, I don't think all ice will melt, because you need more than 2 degrees increase for that.
But, if the antarctic ice melts, I don't think we will actually see that water coming all the way up the northern hemisphere. And the north pole is already water-ice, so that won't cause a rise in water levels.
>>
>>10377566
>it we could start editing human DNA with CRISPR to make us more tolerable to hotter climate
lol we already are.
Humans live in many areas of the planet with high temperatures.
Anything that would kill us is going to kill plants and basically all ecosystem as well.
>>
File: refugees.jpg (128 KB, 1300x650)
128 KB
128 KB JPG
>>10377842
>Would you welcome millions of Dutch refugees?
Yes.
They would be a lot better of what arrives today.
>>
>>10377348
only partly true
>>
>>10377909
>But, if the antarctic ice melts, I don't think we will actually see that water coming all the way up the northern hemisphere
Are you literally retarded?
>>
>>10377547
The clathrate gun hypothesis is just that. Controversial and not well established. There are reasons to think there won't be such a catastrophic release, even if AGW continues and the temperature anomaly increases several degrees C.
>>10377582
Any "alarm" comes from recognizing the severity of the situation. It's better to understand the facts and be alarmed by them than to deny the truth because of political reasons and misconceptions.
>>10377603
There's a lot of resistance from denialtards when it comes to implementing any political solutions that will work. The magnitude of this problem clearly exceeds that of leaded gasoline or the ozone hole as well. Greenhouse emissions come from dozens of different activities and sectors of economy and human life. Leaded gasoline and chlorinated gases are problems isolated to the comparatively narrow uses of those chemicals, and as a result were easier to solve and with much less resistance from clueless faggots and fossil fuel shills.
>>
>>10378312
Why should I oppose climate change if it immensely improves my country?
>>
>>10378427
Because there are red and pink nations on that map with nuclear weapons; and they have no reason to eschew taking everyone else down with them. I know that I would.
>>
>>10377865
Pooland will cease to exist in a few years, the west goes back to Germany and the east to Russia
>>
>>10378222
I poured water on my globe and it went down, The northern hemisphere is safe from sea level rise.
>>
>>10378427
+30% GDP per capita
FIRST LEMME HOP OUT DA MAAFAKIN PORCH
Brb, going out to burn plastic and bury anti-personnel mines on the border
>>
>>10377312
more hurrucanes and tornados. no world ending. climate change, global warming, the big freeze, none of that bullshit will be cause for alarm. For whatever reason "all scientists" who write articles about the weather have ALWAYS been wrong. call it the green party theory or something. unrelated to that, the global supply of crops are becoming less and less nutrient dense, due to crops reaching maturity faster. this will cause fertility to fall but this problem is no ones fault, wont directly lead to deaths (other than blindness) and is no ones fault. Direct polution is important, but CO2 emissions are irrelevant and no ammount of money will reverse the tiny ammount of damage that is actually occuring. 'climate change' is a cash cow for western beuarocracy.

Humanity's effect on the weather is the least important problem our civilization is facing. sociological issues are creeping up much faster than the water driping off of mountain tops and glaciers.
>>
>>10377801
Whos going to make the east obey whatever the west is forced to do? I know this argument is old but no one has demanded china to stop polluting, so nothing the west puts into law will have any effect
>>
>>10377383
>doesn't take responsibiltiy
>blames others
>proves >>10377375 right so hard that I don't even have words for how you proved his point
1. USA (my nation) is still #1 per capita of developed countries (after Australia, but they have <10% our population)
2. We are the top polluters enablers
3. It's a team effort, we either all win together or we all lose (re: go extinct) forever
>>
>>10377456
> Poland alone can feed 200 million people.
Source?
>>
>>10378530
>30% GDP per capita
you are like a little baby, here watch this
>>
>>10378479
>Because there are red and pink nations on that map with nuclear weapons; and they have no reason to eschew taking everyone else down with them. I know that I would
Neither USA or China are going to starve due to climate change.What’s going to happen is that they will invest in new farming technologies and buy more from future agricultural giants like Russia,Canada,Poland.

Africa is going to starve and its population will be reduced
>>
>>10377312
Life will find a way and humanity is fairly resilient, well probably find a way too.

However the war for dwindling resources will probably kill a lot of us.
>>
>>10378698
Africa would love that.
>>
>>10377312
Nobody has a single clue of how fucked we really are, climate is one of the most complex system that we know of.
The world will end eventually when the sun goes boom. If shit hits the fan it won't be like nuclear fallout, it'll be more like desert extend further every year, more hurricane and that kind of shit.
You won't notice it in your daily life.

You can go back to /pol/ agreeing on the positive impact of drumpf, everything gonna be alright
>>
Any of the "solutions" thrown out by people that think they are smart are all much worse than just doing nothing and letting our technological progress save us
>>
>>10378688
Гaмбypгepи бyдeт yнищoжeни, блядъ.
Vatnikland #1.

In all seriousness, I'm not seeing it. At the first sign of a major drought in the tropical areas, northern eurasia will be overrun by nogs and arabs.
Also, by 2100, I don't think we'll still function in GDP terms, since fusion power, synthetic nutrition and advanced AI will be widespread by then and we'd be in a state of practical welfare-fed AI state capitalism.
>>
>>10377312
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/world-population/

>Global warming hews to the most pessimistic projections, rising by 5-6C during this century and a further 3-6C in the next century. This additionally assumes that geoengineering efforts are unsuccessful. In this scenario, the Arctic melts, the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves start collapsing, the Amazon burns down and turns to desert, and the great methane reserves stored in the Siberian permafrost and Arctic clathrates go kaboom, further accelerating global warming. The shocks in this worst case scenario will probably result in a global unraveling, technological regress, and population decline or collapse to perhaps one billion. But the chances of this are really marginal, probably less than 1%.
>>
>>10377566
>Last but not least we could make artificial space habitats and break up the Earth for material as all the nature on the surface has died anyway.

I skipped to this last bit, and decided that all the other stuff you wrote before it must also be absolute crap and not worth reading.
>>
>>10377831
It's a myth because there's like 1/2 inch of topsoil in those places, you dumbass.
>>
>>10377312
Remember the Bronze Age Collapse? A highly developed, civilised world mysteriously vanishes and is followed by hundreds of years of dark age?
A society that consists of many interconnected systems, like our modern ones, is great to live in, but once one of these systems fails, it can lead to a chain reaction of terrible events with catastrophic consequences.
The planet's climate itself is also a highly complicated interconnected system like that. We can't really predict all the chain reactions caused by a higher average temperature, but we can say for sure that there is a high risk in lowering the global average quality of life, to say the least.

Thankfully with the ridiculous amount of data and backups we store now, we will probably at least be able to give our knowledge and experiences on to the far future generations, unlike the bronze age civs. Unless of course weird barbarian sea people show up in the future who burn down all the cities with data storage centers.
>>
>>10379180
Shouldn't have skipped to the end because I went from most likely scenario to most outlandish one by one. Last one is extremely unlikely but technically possible so it was worth mentioning as a possible solution, not a plausible one.
>>
>>10377827
What are the Dutch going to do?
>>
>>10377629
>People that even think for a moment this will impact human way of life are delusional
No. People like you who spend their entire lives in front of screens and don't realize there are people who actually enjoy skiing on glaciers and shit are delusional
>>
>>10380856
I can't imagine people actually enjoy skiing. It must be cope.
>>
>>10377312
>Luna, I don't feel so good...
>>
>>10377842
>>10377827
The ice we skate is getting pretty thin.
The waters getting warm so you might as well swim.
>>
>>10380950
it's pretty fun desu :)
>>
>>10377383
>India, and the middle east
>empathy
nah, we're fucked
>>
>>10377312
Unless we have a socialist revolution, it will be a catastrophe. Capitalism by its very nature can't deal with the problem, we need central planning and production for use rather than exchange if we want to mitigate climate change (at this point, its coming whether we like it or not).
>>
>>10380997
>Capitalism by its very nature can't deal with the problem

What a bunch of bullshit. Once global warming becomes a big enough problem it starts to become profitable to fix global warming after which companies will hurry to fuck up to fix it.

Capitalism is a perfect system for things like this because capitalism balances itself. It will fix the problems it creates itself because if the problem becomes big enough it starts to hurt profitability and thus businesses will reverse the problem to maximize profitability.
>>
>>10381057
>Once global warming becomes a big enough problem it starts to become profitable to fix global warming after which companies will hurry to fuck up to fix it.
Learn what tragedy of the commons is. It will never be profitable for companies to not pollute, because externalising costs gives a competitive advantage.

>Capitalism is a perfect system for things like this because capitalism balances itself.
Why is it that people who talk the most about the free market have the least idea how it works?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
>>
>>10381057
What planet do you live on? Climate change already is a big problem and thanks to major capitalists like the Koch brothers its hard enough to even convince the American public that climate change even exists, let alone that something has to be done about it.

Futhermore, it won't become profitable. This is why capitalists don't want anything to do with renewables in the first place, they aren't profitable. Desirable, efficient and incredibly useful yes, but not profitable. Capitalism will not balance itself out, it has never done so. It cannot balance itself out, because capitalism is a copmpetitive system that always pushes toward profitability no matter what. If you don't make as much profit as your competitors, you cannot compete and are bankrupt. This "law" basically forces everyone to continually intensify production and use any method to bypass regulations and the law to keep up despite the irrationality of it.
>>
>>10381082
>This is why capitalists don't want anything to do with renewables in the first place, they aren't profitable.

What the fuck are you talking about? Capitalists love green technology because they have a higher profit margin than other energy technology that is greener such as nuclear energy.

Or did you think green energy growing exponentially globally was due to some altruism or global charity? It's a fucking huge profitable business anon and capitalism will save the planet through profit.

>>10381070
I know what externality is anon you misunderstood what I meant. I meant once the problem gets too big and thus starts to impact business as in the externality disrupts their supply chain indirectly they will put a real dollar value on fixing the environment. This combined with consumers liking the company more for the PR of it legitimately helping the environment will eventually make economic sense thus companies will eventually fix global warming if it gets worse enough.
>>
>>10381115
Capitalists don't love green technology, they love fossil fuels. Green technology is not expanding "exponentially", there's barely any investment in it in the public sector let alone the private. Green technology is not profitable because its not as easily commidifiable and sustainability means that people aren't consuming as much.
>>
>>10377312
I'm not worried because projections are always talking about the end of the century and I will be long dead by then.
>>
>>10377563
>Scientists estimate the time from the start of the collapse between 3-4 degrees warming and the last multicellular species to die off to take between 10,000-50,000 years.
Name these scientists, please. given we have multi cellular life in all sorts of places I find this really hard to believe.
>>
>>10377831
Strange. North of Norway, especially the country of Finnmark, has excellent soil, problem is the short growth season. Care to provide any good reasons why this would not become the new bread basket if temperature increases?

t.Norwegian who lived there.
>>
File: gettyimages-81556908.jpg (2.35 MB, 3000x1988)
2.35 MB
2.35 MB JPG
>>10381150
These projections only tell you about global average. On a local level you could find yourself in one these "end of century" events next year. Your home could be washed away in a flood.
>>
File: solar_maples_3375.jpg (593 KB, 1200x900)
593 KB
593 KB JPG
>>10381149
not true, meanwhile everybody and his dog is putting solar panels on the roof and buying a hybrid car
>>
>>10381520
growth season will not become this longer because warming will not make your days longer in winter, but it will bring you drought and fires and new pests from the south
>>
File: n7G7ZmA[1].png (80 KB, 446x939)
80 KB
80 KB PNG
>>10381149
>Green technology is not expanding "exponentially"
???
>>
>>10377312
>Can someone redpill me on climate change?
Biologist. Part of a research team focusing on climate change.
>How screwed are we?
Pretty much.
>Is the world as we know it really gonna end?
Yes. Whether we can change it depends on who you asks, I say humans don't function in the way required, you can't just shift society off it's path into another direction, but all the effort is going into that and it's shutting down the real shit - geoengineering - because activists feel like they're making a difference after shouting for a few hours (they're not).
>Inb4 go watch a billion videos, I just wanna know realistically how screwed are we?
We're going to be fine, we'll run out of lifespan before we reach the full effect. We'll generally survive. You know the weather changes most, but biodiversity will also tank, only a few species can keep up with the fast changes (relatively fast, our speed compared to evolution).

So generally, all good for life in general, just a few changes here and there, we'll just move a bit closer to the optimal survivor build - Single-celled organisms. It's kinda like a megacorporation downsizing after a growing period so they'll cut out a few departments to optimize, just happens to be ours.
>>
>>10381688
Here are the solutions
>CRISPR engineering of crops and humans to better withstand the new climate
>Carbon capture techniques to actively lower the CO2 levels of the atmosphere, reverse the damage done
>Construction of artificial habitats with controlled environments
>Worst case scenario pump sulfates into the atmosphere to artificially cool down the planet for at least a century or so.

Humanity isn't going anywhere.
>>
>>10381712
Problem is mostly human. We have the tech.

>CRISPR engineering of crops and humans to better withstand the new climate
Fuck we got people now actively campaigning against deploying GMO crops. It's already caused massive damage. They'd throw a fit.
>Carbon capture techniques to actively lower the CO2 levels of the atmosphere, reverse the damage done
We got prototypes of this, it's a good idea. But it has high costs and requires a massive amount of energy to run (and nuclear energy isn't acceptable because big nuke bad), so currently it's out compared to laughable green activism.
>>
>>10381764
>Carbon capture techniques to actively lower the CO2 levels of the atmosphere, reverse the damage done
>We got prototypes of this, it's a good idea. But it has high costs and requires a massive amount of energy to run
This is why it's a shit idea that will never work for generating electricity.
>>
>>10381876
Carbon capture isn't meant to generate electricity. It's meant to capture CO2 from the atmosphere.

It's a technology we could use in the future. Build a fuckload of nuclear power plants or future fusion plants and suck all the bad CO2 out of the air and fix our planet.
>>
>>10381884
>build a fuckload of nuclear power plants
>fix our planet
But at what cost?
>>
>>10381897
1x Very Deep Hole.
>>
>>10381688
Climatologist. Part of a research team focusing on climate change.
All you say is false.
>>
>>10382037
based
>>
>>10377805
notice how israel isnt flooded
>>
>>10377312
Ok, let's see. Most people are mumbling something about temp rise, co2 and ice melting. I don't know why these are the most discussed topics, because they aren't the most important.

Sea level rise is a real threat, but not because of ice melting but because of the expanding of water itself.

This requires higher temperatures which is partly caused by CO2 but even more by Methan (comparatevely a much stronger GHG) and hydrogen. Espescially hydrogen is a problem as it a) kicks us in a positive feedback loop and b) leads to higher rainfalls and generally more energy stored in the atmosphere.

What I really see as problem tho is acidification of the ocean as we don't know much about the food webs down there. But killing of the calciferous organisms is probably not the way to go.

Second huge problem is the loss of insects. Pollination, degradation of detritus etc. Look up the term ecosystem services, the you'll see why we're heavily depending on a functional web of invertebrates.

Humanity won't die out, but the bigger the change in climate, the bigger the change in power and therefor the bigger the conflicts, refugees etc.

We'll see where we will land, limiting under 2C should probably give us a relatively easy going way. But we also have to be cautious about fragmentation and sealing of landscape, plastic use etc. Everything is interconnected and goddamn complicated. Too complicated to have really solid forecasts so far, simply because of the amount of data
>>
>>10377525
>where is the data
I'm going to assume you've already seen the data showing that global temperatures are rising
What you probably haven't seen is that hydrocarbon fuel companies' profit margins are razor fucking thin, sometimes even in the negatives due to the fact that we are running out of oil. Unless we start ramping down production we're incredibly fucked, renewable energy just won't be able to bring us back to the rate of production oil got us to
>>
>>10381551
I never claimed days would be longer. I had expected global warming would mean spring came earlier and the growth season lasted longer.

And what is it with this maximising of crisis? Why should an otherwise arctic region all of a sudden be on fire? It is really hard to take such claims seriously.
>>
>>10382123
he’s a doomer, you are not only safe but will prosper
>>
>>10380801
> Unless of course weird barbarian sea people show up in the future who burn down all the cities with data storage centers.
Current theories on the Late Bronze Age Collapse state that a major contributor to it was climactic shift (though of course not due to human activities back then). This caused famines in the many organized nations, and while they'd otherwise be able to handle such an event, the Sea Peoples were the straw that broke the camels back. These Sea Peoples are thought to have been the results of mass migrations and population shifts due to starvation and drought in less developed regions (e.g. Europe). These people fleeing would cascade with others, adding up in waves of the starving and the desperate, leading to rather predictable results.

Frankly, the number of comparisons to the planets current state is uncanny.
>>
>>10382408
>Frankly, the number of comparisons to the planets current state is uncanny.
Bronze Age didn’t have machine guns and drones.
Refugees are toast
>>
>>10381884
Can we maybe just not burn all of that carbon in the first place?
>>
>>10381082
>Renewables
>Efficient
>Not loved by porky

>>10381149
>Not getting insane public subsidies

Holy shit, are solar shills really still this deluded? The only viable renewable sources are hydro and geothermal, both of which are geographically constrained. Solar and wind have gotten immense subsidies for over a decade across many first world countries, and have shown time and again to be completely useless for decarbonisation due to intermittency needing to be handled by new coal and gas.
>>
File: consumer12.png (204 KB, 504x312)
204 KB
204 KB PNG
>>10381712>>10381884
>>10381764
>>10382808

Oh pleez sabe us oh wonderful bloated psychopathic Consumers. Look In thy good book of ebonomics and findda solufion to da problumz!!
>>
File: consumer15.png (323 KB, 593x352)
323 KB
323 KB PNG
>>10382879
Look at this man. Let's say that he steals all he eats from the starving children. That would probably make him a genuine psychopath, correct?

That's exactly what The Consumers are. Fucking psychopaths.
>>
>>10377547
it's literally nothing and only noise
>>
>>10377768
>unironically posting a snopes link
well picked picture, friend
>>
File: map1.png (530 KB, 1019x595)
530 KB
530 KB PNG
>>10377312
It's pretty real.

China will probably dump powder in the stratosphere to fix it.

Global warming becomes global dimming, white genocide and/or global nuclear war ensues
>>
It's plainly obvious to anyone with a brain that the only viable pathway to rapid decarbonisation is an immense build out of nuclear. Of course this won't happen, because Porky wants to keep making a buck on oil, gas, and shitty renewables, and 99% of """""""environmentalists""""""""" are retarded hippies like >>10381149 who eat up the solar bullshit. So yeah, shits fucked and we're looking at a solid ~4 degrees of warming at least.
>>
File: consumer2.png (228 KB, 555x396)
228 KB
228 KB PNG
>>10382916
Problem is, that an "immense build out of nuclear", won't do anything to reduce fossil fuel use. The Consumers will just have an all new source of energy to add to the mix - which will be used solely to increase their numbers.
>>
>>10382420
>Bronze Age didn’t have machine guns and drones.
>Refugees are toast

it's not "refugees" tard

these prospectless males will form military groups, and will often find military funding through clandestine sources (Saudis, Russia, US, etc)

if we have less and less to go around, we'll have more and more of these guys running around.

It's a lot easier to attack a settled population than a vagrant one.
>>
File: data_tampering2.png (10 KB, 279x181)
10 KB
10 KB PNG
>>10377768
>>
File: data_tampering1.png (8 KB, 259x194)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>10377525
>>10382117
>data
>>
>>10377383
>It's not too late to save the environment dude, we just need to focus on china, India
This is why everyone hates the pigs. Time to block out the sun.
>>
>>10382944
>>10377525
>>10382117
>>
File: France_percent_area.png (72 KB, 740x652)
72 KB
72 KB PNG
>>10382922
It's literally the only thing that will reduce fossil fuel use outside of a global collapse of industrial civilisation. As nice as that might be, we're talking about technical solutions at the moment. There's a clear example in France of large scale transition to nuclear displacing fossil fuels, and a clear example in Germany that attempting to do the same with renewables doesn't do shit.
>>
>>10382965
France is fucked lol
>>
>>10382922
>>10382965
I think France's birthrate is fine right now.

The focus should be on the US, since they're the top emitters AND have a high fertility rate to boot (for a developed country)
>>
>>10382965
>the only thing that will reduce fossil fuel use

Your graph doesn't show that though.
>>
File: eco.png (259 KB, 486x506)
259 KB
259 KB PNG
>>10377348
>We stop polluting and the Earth stabilizes and cools
>blacks and browns get sick of the cold because they are less adapted to it; they go south
Makes sense why the Third Reich was the first government to pass environmental protection laws.
>>
>>10382950
> United States, Canada, Australia
>The top 3 are a cluster of anglosphere European expats.
There's no way that's a coincidence. These countries are the ones settled by not just White people, but specifically the group of White people that thought it was okay to spill all over land that wasn't theirs or the land of their ancestors, shitting up the natural ecosystems and abusing the natives. No surprises they're the ones who fuck up the climate too.
>>
>>10377312
>climate change?
Its fake
>>
>>10382941
>The US average temperature is exactly the same as the global average temperature
Are you an idiot?
>>
>>10382406
Most of Africa and the Arab peninsula were not arable to begin with so the losses there are meaningless. Same with the interior of Australia.
>>
>>10382915
>China will probably dump powder in the stratosphere to fix it.
They are already working on geoengineering such as using cannons to fire chemical into clouds to cause precipitations. It is puzzling that the warmers never protest against this but trying an experiment with a few hundred litres of water is instantly banned. Seemingly no other solution than a return to the stone age will be accepted by the warmers.
>>
>>10383211
Well I'm American, *wraps in flag*
>>
>>10377563
>Scientists estimate the time from the start of the collapse between 3-4 degrees warming and the last multicellular species to die off to take between 10,000-50,000 years.
This is ridiculous. Who said such a thing, and who would be stupid enough to believe we'll be fine as long as some multicellular life forms aren't extinct yet?
>>
>>10377603
there is a very distinct difference between global warming and the ozone hole/leaded gas. The cost to address it is much higher, and the solution much slower to act. Your entire attitude is way too cavalier and unfortunately reflects a wider political reality. People who have seen crises come and go and survived them often begin to think they are invulnerable, that the institutions and habits they have had their whole life could never disappear. Even the most cursory study of history shows that this is not so.
>>
>>10383157
Their colonial history is irrelevant. What is significant about those 3 is that they're the most developed countries with the largest fossil fuel reserves, pic related. Hence, the most powerful fossil fuel lobby groups
>>
>>10377554
Fucking schizoposter go back to infowars
>>
>>10383600
Also we know China i lying about emissions.
>>
>>10382606
>Can we maybe just not burn all of that carbon in the first place?
come on, you are wrong here, this would be way to simple and it would make sense
>>
File: 1508971106217.png (147 KB, 645x729)
147 KB
147 KB PNG
>>10377312
>redpill
OK, global warning is a chinese-jewish reptillian conspiracy cooked up to take your guns away
>>
>>10382420
>Bronze Age didn’t have machine guns and drones.
>Refugees are toast
Imagine the bronze age sea peoples, but with machine guns. It's not just the government who has them.
>>
>>10383536
>They are already working on geoengineering such as using cannons to fire chemical into clouds to cause precipitations. It is puzzling that the warmers never protest against
There's a huge difference between trying to temporarily alter local weather and permanently alter the global climate.

>Seemingly no other solution than a return to the stone age will be accepted by the warmers.
Seemingly nothing other than making shit up with be believed by deniers.
>>
>>10377312
climate change or not we must stop throwing money at africa to stop overpopulation
>>
>>10377312
Things will change. Scientists think it will be for the worse but maybe not. This is a problem with so many variables and derivatives that anybody who claims to know the truth is a fool.
>>
File: comics.jpg (281 KB, 658x1164)
281 KB
281 KB JPG
>>10383157
>There's no way that's a coincidence.
Of course not. All of angloland (except britain) is just a transient. The US isn't even close to carrying capacity yet, that's why we can get $2 beef.

When you have a small population awash in resources, people spend expensively.

>white people
It'll be solved when China and Saudi money get in on the global dimming scheme. Literal white genocide-tier.
>>
>>10383536
>but trying an experiment with a few hundred litres of water is instantly banned
what are you talking about
>>
>>10383771
I thought the SPICE project was really well known:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_Particle_Injection_for_Climate_Engineering
Again the protests were there.
>>
Redpill youself
Trust no-one
>>
put solar panels on your roof + buy a Tesla = stop climate change
>>
>>10382959
>>10382944
In both images the world temperature is increasing
Good job you proved me right
>>
>>10384006
This is how I see it: most environmentalists are retarded. Because put simply, most people are retarded.

Global warming is real. That said, the public reaction to certain events, especially niche ones like this, can easily be engineered using internet marketing. This is already done by western "NGOs" on a regular basis.

Someone else on here already mentioned the idea of global dimming. Fact is, it is VERY EASY to completely eradicate global warming; just pump some reflective calcium powder or whatever into the stratosphere. It's just that it would mean less light also. And that's a problem for...not India, not Africa, but Europe and the US, which are already light-starved (Europe more so). Cost-wise this is extremely cheap and even fucking Uganda could probably do it tomorrow (it's estimated to cost under 10 billion to prevent 2C of warming)

First world countries prefer global warming because it benefits them. Remember how all those CFCs were depleting ozone and all european nations basically fixed the problem overnight? That's because it was a problem that was affecting the west; depletion of ozone means more mutagenic radiation, and we know that whites can't handle that.

Global warming only benefits white countries, maybe sans Australia. It only hurts India, the Mideast, and maybe other equatorial regions. That's why the resistance to light-reflective geoengineering exists, be it strato shielding or cloud seeding as you mentioned.
>>
>>10382959
>better data coverage = tampering
Deniers are retarded.
>>
>>10384540
>First world countries prefer global warming because it benefits them.


But what about ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, higher CO2 concentration making the air more stale & making us dumber? It's not like Northern US turns into a tropical paradise and there are no side effects.
>>
>>10384557
Hey look, it's another retard

comparatively better is the same thing as absolutely better.

"What if we could eradicate the entire government of Russia but this ONE dude in nebraska would die? What a tragedy!" -- you
>>
12 years a slave.
>>
>>10384564
Why do you think the issues I brought up won't outweigh the potential benefits? It might be comparatively worse when CO2 is 1,200 PPM and nobody can figure out how to start a car.
>>
Even most greenies underestimate how bad it is going to be.
>>
>>10383702
>Imagine the bronze age sea peoples, but with machine guns. It's not just the government who has them.
government also has tanks,planes,drones,APC’s and logistical supply lines.
A mass of malnourished refugees with machetes and rusty AK-47s won’t be a threat to any country willing to defend itself, especially if it 3000-2000km away from them
>>
>>10384730
The Syrian civil war has been going on for like 8 years. I'm sure a civil war in the US would go for even longer.
>>
>>10384540
>most environmentalists are retarded
It certainly looks strange that they vehemently oppose all forms of geoengineering, even the testing of it. It is as if all solutions other than debilitating cuts in use of processes making CO2 shall be banned. Interestingly they never talk about the importance of cheap fertilizers made from gas and that cutting this will kill more people than all the despots of the 1900's put together.
>>
>>10377456
and EU had over 25% crop failures to the heat wave last summer, your point anon?
>>
>>10383211
That's not the U.S. you idiot. They are both temperature data of the entire earth. That's why the title says "Global."
>>
>>10384552
>>better data coverage = tampering
>Alarmists are retarded.

Please explain how they went back in time to add more thermometers to cover more places.
>>
>>10377431
>>
>>10385925
>Please explain how they went back in time to add more thermometers to cover more places.
Wew lad. What possessed you to lurk on a science forum? At least two options should be immediately obvious to even the most brain-damaged tard:

>More recorded data was integrated that was previously unavailable
>New methods of finding the temperature from proxies in the environment

The actual process will be in the white papers. Why don't you go read?
>>
>>10384954
Geoengineering is a secondary strategy that cannot replace decarbonization.
>>
>>10385918
>They are both temperature data of the entire earth.
No they aren't. NCAR had very little Southern Hemisphere data in 1974.
>>
>>10385046
>and EU had over 25% crop failures to the heat wave last summer, your point anon?
And my country’s fruit crop increased by 50%(yes we are in EU).Why are you manipulating data by ignoring the fact that EU crops vary significantly country by country?
>>
>>10386377
>increased by 50%
so 3 tomatoes, congratz
>>
>>10383741
but anon india and china house almost half of the world's population
>>
>>10377312
>Global warming
Not science or math
>>
>>10383615
You tell him Reddit!
>>
File: crucifix.png (50 KB, 550x543)
50 KB
50 KB PNG
>>10382959
deniers:
>you can't adjust temperature estimates based on new and better data!
also deniers:
>thermometer records are worthless unless you adjust for the UHI effect
>>
>>10386377
it's nice for fruit and also wine (but only if you spend money on water) it's bad for wheat and corn, so get used to have no bread and only live on expensive fruit
>>
>>10386127
And how do you KNOW that?
>>
>>10386646
Wine is actually a good substitute of bread.
At least that's what my uncles says, when he's able to speak.
>>
>>10377312
>Redpill
Fucking hoax

>How screwed we are

Very, read new braindead deal, they want to ban cows.

>Is the world going end

No, we, human will end if we let this nonsense continue to poison our society and science research.

>Don't want it to get fucked

Tell the truth to the world, it is a fucking hoax, focus on clean water, air and land, stop limiting carbon emission bullshit.

>How screwed we are
Again, very, even Trump doesn't buy their bullshit, but he can only be POTUS for 6 years from now, this hoax needs to be ended ASAP.
>>
>>10380964
Upboated!
>>
We are fucked ecologically and it comes down to more than global warming but entire human industrialization as a concept. Ted Kaczynski was right about everything.

Boero, F. (2015). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. F1000 - Post-publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature. doi:10.3410/f.725585048.793507632

Change, I. P. (n.d.). Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies. Climate Change 2014 Mitigation of Climate Change,151-206. doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415416.008

Heijden, M. V. (2017). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. F1000 - Post-publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature. doi:10.3410/f.732005636.793540388

Linder, G., & Little, E. (2010). Invasive Species and Environmental Risk Assessment. Environmental Risk Assessment and Management from a Landscape Perspective,203-244. doi:10.1002/9780470593028.ch11

Promislow, D. (2007). Faculty of 1000 evaluation for Rarity value and species extinction: The anthropogenic Allee effect. F1000 - Post-publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature. doi:10.3410/f.1052853.510896

Relationships between Livestock Production and Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation, and Human Dimensions. (2015). ASABE 1st Climate Change Symposium: Adaptation and Mitigation. doi:10.13031/cc.20152093181

Sindermann, C. J. (1996). Ocean pollution: Effects on living resources and humans. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Tigre, M. A. (n.d.). Threats to the Amazon Rainforest: Deforestation and Climate Change. Regional Cooperation in Amazonia,48-75. doi:10.1163/9789004313507_004
>>
>>10386756
Because it treats (a subset of) the symptoms and not the root issue.
>>
>>10378672
>per capita
lmao who cares dude? there's a billion or more chinks pumping co2 into the air night and day
>>
>>10384564
>ocean acidification being in anyway comparatively better
I hope you don't like seafood mate
Or food from any ecosystem that depends on ocean life (spoiler: that would be literally all of them)
>>
>>10377312
The Earth will get globally warmer on average. More extreme weather will be produced, more species will get affected. Humans will learn to change and adapt, but the Earth will become worse to live in and the problem won't be solved after a long time.
>>
File: 20190214_213137.jpg (725 KB, 1080x1562)
725 KB
725 KB JPG
Little bit of positivity if u looking for that
>>
>>10386779
Cheers!
>>
>>10387174
No no no. We can't have this.
The public loves disasters.
>>
>>10385925
I've never heard such a dumb comment on /sci/ before. I legitimately cringed in public so hard some stranger had to ask if I was okay
>>
>>10387097
That is a really bad metaphor, just as if you would deny insulin to those with diabetes.

Either global warning is a problem and treating the results is a valid action, or this is a religion where facts flew out of the window.
>>
>>10387156
China is #1 in absolute numbers, twice as much absolute co2 emissions than USA (which is #2). How much of that is to support american industry though?

>>10377383
USA and China are the biggest polluters. They work together though.
>>
File: 2014_emissions_0.png (67 KB, 448x464)
67 KB
67 KB PNG
>>10387454
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

https://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/emis/top2014.tot
>>
>>10386386
Not tomatoes, Polish apples.
>>
File: per_capita_emissions.png (78 KB, 1280x950)
78 KB
78 KB PNG
>>10387460
>China has to go on a diet before the US because they have more total weight
>>
>>10387495
I mean... yes. USA cutting its emissions by half would only decrease total co2 emissions by 7.5 percentage points. Meanwhile it would decrease by 15 percentage points if China halved their emissions. Again, I would be interested in knowing how much of China's emissions are due to U.S. industry.
>>
>>10387505
>I mean... yes. USA cutting its emissions by half would only decrease total co2 emissions by 7.5 percentage points. Meanwhile it would decrease by 15 percentage points if China halved their emissions.

>Yes. USA cutting their emissions by half would only decrease total co2 emissions by X. Meanwhile it would decrease by a whole lot more if the rest of the world halved their emissions instead.
>>
>>10387158
>Or food from any ecosystem that depends on ocean life (spoiler: that would be literally all of them)
Ecosystems in Poland,Belarus,Central Asia have little connection to ocean life
>>
>>10386646
>it's nice for fruit and also wine (but only if you spend money on water) it's bad for wheat and corn, so get used to have no bread and only live on expensive fruit

Corn production in Poland is growing.
And fruits are super cheap here, a kilo of good apples costs less than €1 euro.
Also poultry and cattle is increasing due to longer pasture season.
Other countries might be fucked but for us global warming is a big win
>>
>>10387505
>>10387577
If Americans halved their emissions they would still be emitting more than the average Chinese. Why should the Chinese put their emissions below the world average while others continue to gorge themselves? Because they live in a country with more people? Makes no sense. The US, Canada, Russia, and other oil-rich countries have the most superfluous emissions to cut, so they should be the first to do so.
>>
>>10387834
/Pol/ is advocating for white privilege. The rest of the world should cut emissions first because the white man deserves his privilege.
>>
>>10387721
I want to eat more than just polish apples.
>>
>>10387861
America isn't white though.

>>10387834
I agree. To make it fair, all the top polluters should reduce their emissions per capita to half the current world average.
>>
>>10387868
>want to eat more than just polish apples.
we got strawberries,pork,chicken,milk,cherries,bread,pears,cabbage,corn and so on.
All good quality products due to good soil quality and agricultural traditions.
>>
>>10387911
Can I buy polish land? I'm not white
>>
>>10387950
What does race have to do with it?
>>
>>10377312
Almost all proposed climate change solutions are bunk except technical ones (inventions)
Tax credits and other restrictions exist to squeeze down on what little power whites have in their own countries and ship it abroad to places like india china and africa.

We've been showering africa in aid programs, donations, etc for decades with no change, and screwing with their power structure to depose "bad people" all the time as well. it never results in anything. Colonialism would be a kindness to these people. It would have been better to simply leave them be but that will never happen now that pandora's box has been opened. Jews need africa to control their diamond trade and destroy white countries, and china wants in on africa too. Even if we pulled out china would just come right in. Africas fucked. Indias a little different, Indias fully capable of some innovation even if they are as a race disgusting and prolific. They are capable of implamenting technical solutions we come up with and managing to a greater or lesser extent, their own affairs. they don't need tax credits from us, they need financial incentives not to destroy their own nation. and that means not feeding globalism by selling their shrimp and other material goods at the cheap rates that we buy them at.

A marked decrease in human quality of life happenes whenever a nation is not capable of boycotting or controlling local industries because they can ship their goods to other markets who will purchase them just fine. No one who buys an iphone in burger has to live next to an iphone factory. Jews overwealmingly control most of these industries and will screetch antisemitism when they are justly held under financial gun point.

TL:DR if you want to help, be a conservative that purchases goods whenever possible from your local area and businesses.
>>
>>10387961
I've heard polish people aren't welcoming
>>
>>10388119
Thats because in order to immigrate you have to substantiate that you are a benefit to society instead of a leach. Just like I cannot walk up next to someones house and ask to come inside and be let in.
>>
>>10377312
I don’t know how screwed we are, but I do know the climate models are biased to make us look screwed. Zerohedge reported on a consulting firm that found egregious errors in the data used for climate models, including a ocean temperature reading taken 500km inland.
>>
>>10377629
It won’t end complex life. A mass extinction? Yes. But life has always recovered. The only way I see us ending complex life is through nuclear war.
>>
>>10378746
I promise you, nuclear war will be what kills us. Much sooner than the climate.
>>
>>10377563
>Scientists estimate
Sources.
And don't post things like alternative.info.com, I mean serious sources.
>>
>>10388119
Asians are ok to Poles,just as Spaniards(and Latinos who can fake it).Blacks actually have people in Poland that loves them and ones that are racist towards them.
Arabs and in general muslims are very disliked in Poland, but it’s more like silent treatment than skinhead violence
>>
File: bce.jpg (27 KB, 608x402)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>10377453
>>10378427
>>10382406

Mfw you're in Germany and climate change will only make your country richer
>>
>>10386124
>>More recorded data was integrated that was previously unavailable
Yeah, right. State, with checkable references exactly what clean data was added.
>>New methods of finding the temperature from proxies in the environment
Now you're showing your ignorance. Those are graphs of instrumental data.
>>
>>10386216
>>They are both temperature data of the entire earth.
>No they aren't. NCAR had very little Southern Hemisphere data in 1974

So you're admitting that much of Southern Hemisphere climate data was made up. Yeah, they admitted that in a ClimateGate email, see attached. And now what, did they find a treasure chest of buried ship data from the Southern Hemisphere? Is that why you're so absolutely sure that the new graphs of historical southern hemisphere/global data are accurate now?

You're not fooling anyone. Seriously.
>>
File: NYT_SH_data.gif (16 KB, 575x117)
16 KB
16 KB GIF
>>10388554
All that missing SH data; pic related. I guess they just had a time machine to go back and plant more thermometers.
>>
>>10388602
https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/01/05/issue.html
>>
>>10388554
>>10388602
>>10388604
Lol, this is on par with saying we didn't have any temperature data pre-1800 therefore it's all made up checkmate alarmists XD. You do understand what reconstructions are right?
>>
>>10377312
REDPILL

It's a proven fact that the Earth is warming up. This leads to greater fluctuation in weather. Winters get colder. Summers get hotter. What's NOT ironclad is if it's man-made. That argument is plausible, but certainly not a "settled science" as Bill Nye the genderfluid guy would lead you to believe.

For me, I don't think it matters if it's man made or not. You can't stop it either way. But why would I care what happens 100 years from now if white people are going to become 2nd class citizens in their own countries? If anything, climate change is a blessing in disguise. Once whites are dead, it'll be the final act of revenge of the white race, turning our blue Earth into a planetary gas chamber for every shitskin parasite.

At this point, both polacks and vegans can agree that humans are parasites and should be exterminated.
>>10377554
This. Any globalist panel has absolute no legitimacy and has a 100% guarantee of being bought by Sorosbucks.
>>
>>10388554
>So you're admitting that much of Southern Hemisphere climate data was made up.
No, I'm saying that the NCAR coverage in 1974 was not good enough to determine global temperature.

>Yeah, they admitted that in a ClimateGate email, see attached.
It's hard to see what they're saying since this email has been taken out of context, like all of the other "climategate" memes.

>And now what, did they find a treasure chest of buried ship data from the Southern Hemisphere?
No, they simply integrated Southern Hemisphere data that was not available in the 70s. You might be too young to understand this, but there was a time before the internet when it was much harder to get data.

>Is that why you're so absolutely sure that the new graphs of historical southern hemisphere/global data are accurate now?
They have high coverage in both hemispheres.

I'm glad you at least learned the difference between data tampering and data sets being different.
>>
>>10388842
>What's NOT ironclad is if it's man-made.
It's directly observable. Your next step in the seven stages of denial will be "OK it's manmade but it's not bad." Don't worry, you'll get to acceptance eventually.
>>
>>10388135
>Zerohedge reported on a consulting firm that found egregious errors in the data used for climate models
no they didn't
>>10388842
>What's NOT ironclad is if it's man-made. That argument is plausible, but certainly not a "settled science" as Bill Nye the genderfluid guy would lead you to believe.
There is a strong consensus among climatologists that AGW is occurring, based on the measurement evidence.
>>
>>10388554
Using a phrase puled from an informal discussion between experts to try and gauge the state of a field is pretty stupid.
>>
>>10387834
>If Americans halved their emissions they would still be emitting more than the average Chinese.
China has been caught lying about emissions. There is no longer any reason to believe what they say.
>>
>>10389218
No. In real science you need to point out just one single error to tank a hypothesis. What we see here would in other fields be grounds for dismissal.
>>
>>10389361
>In real science you need to point out just one single error to tank a hypothesis.
You're confused on some many levels I'm not even sure where to start.
That's not how science works, and these people aren't doing science - they're having a conversation.

>What we see here would in other fields be grounds for dismissal.
It's really not. Complaining about data quality is a pretty normal part of informal conversations.
>>
File: SoSie+SoSchiff_Ansicht.jpg (2.95 MB, 2161x1625)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB JPG
>>10388438
Would be nice but it's wrong. German agriculture was hit hard by an unusually warm and dry year. Fortunately German economy is not based on agriculture. It's highly industrialised.
Actually Germany becomes rich by fighting climate change. By selling you wind turbines, electric cars and trains, solar energy equipment etc.
power.
>>
>>10377566
>>10380831
>Or use fusion power to turn CO2 back into oil in an energy intensive project and pump it back into old oil-wells, literally turning back what we did.
explain?
>>
>>10388143
Nuclear war would only change the global temperature by 10 degrees. Global warming is expected to change temperatures by 23 degrees. Global warming is worse than a nuclear winter.
>>
>>10389436
When you burn oil you turn a hydrocarbon into CO2+H2O+Energy.

You use this energy to power your car or power plant.

You can also reverse this by putting CO2+Water+Energy together back into oil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

This is one of the processes we have for turning CO2 into liquid oil which we can put back into the ground again reversing the damage we have done.
>>
>>10389357
It was known for a while that China was underreporting its emissions, but in recent years China has revised its own historical data to better reflect the actual amounts and has adopted better retiring standards. The amount of underreporting is not significant enough to affect the fact that China's per capita emissions are still near the world average. We know from independent air sampling what China's emissions reporting should look like.
>>
>>10389528
>We know from independent air sampling what China's emissions reporting should look like.
Do you have a link to that? I'm curious as to how it would work.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.